Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition of Linguistic Minority Institution Against NCTE Rejection of B.Ed. Course Application. Staff List Approval by Examining Body Not Mandatory for Minority Institutions Under Section 18 of NCTE Act, 1993.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: NAGPUR In Favour of Accused
  • 80
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sarvodaya Mahila Mandal, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and its Principal, Kamladevi Shikshan Mahavidyalaya, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The petitioner no.1 is a Linguistic Minority Educational Institution recognized by the State of Maharashtra. It applied for conducting a B.Ed. course, but the application was rejected by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) mainly on the ground that the Staff List approved by the Examining Body was not submitted. Against this rejection, an appeal was preferred under Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, which was also dismissed. The petitioners then approached the High Court. The court, after hearing the parties, observed that the requirement of staff list approval by the Examining Body is not a mandatory condition for minority institutions. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the respondents to reconsider the application without insisting on the staff list approval. The court also directed that the application be decided within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.

Headnote

A) Education Law - Linguistic Minority Institution - B.Ed. Course Recognition - Section 18 National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 - The petitioner, a Linguistic Minority Educational Institution, applied for conducting B.Ed. course but the application was rejected on the ground that the Staff List approved by the Examining Body was not submitted. The Court held that the requirement of staff list approval by the Examining Body is not a mandatory condition for minority institutions and the rejection was unsustainable. The Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to reconsider the application without insisting on the staff list approval. (Paras 1-4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the rejection of the application for conducting B.Ed. course by the National Council for Teacher Education on the ground that the Staff List approved by the Examining Body was not submitted is sustainable in law, especially for a Linguistic Minority Educational Institution.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider the application of the petitioners for conducting B.Ed. course without insisting on the Staff List approved by the Examining Body. The application shall be decided within a period of four weeks from the date of the order.

Law Points

  • Linguistic Minority Educational Institution
  • B.Ed. Course
  • Staff List Approval
  • Examining Body
  • Section 18 NCTE Act
  • 1993
  • Recognition
  • Rejection
  • Appeal
  • Writ Petition
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (BOM) (08) 147

Writ Petition No. 1986 of 2013

2013-08-07

Anoop V. Mohta, Z.A. Haq

F.T. Mirza for petitioners, P.S. Chawhan for respondents

Sarvodaya Mahila Mandal and The Principal, Kamladevi Shikshan Mahavidyalaya

The National Council for Teacher Education and The National Council for Teacher Education, Western Regional Committee

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging rejection of application for conducting B.Ed. course by NCTE.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought quashing of the rejection order and direction to reconsider the application without insisting on staff list approval.

Filing Reason

The application for B.Ed. course was rejected on the ground that Staff List approved by the Examining Body was not submitted.

Previous Decisions

The appeal under Section 18 of the NCTE Act was dismissed.

Issues

Whether the rejection of the application for conducting B.Ed. course on the ground of non-submission of Staff List approved by the Examining Body is sustainable for a Linguistic Minority Institution.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the requirement of staff list approval is not mandatory for minority institutions. Respondents argued that the application was incomplete.

Ratio Decidendi

The requirement of staff list approval by the Examining Body is not a mandatory condition for minority institutions, and rejection on that ground is unsustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner no.1 being a Linguistic Minority Educational Institution as recognized by the State of Maharashtra, applied for conducting B.Ed. Course. However, the said application was rejected mainly on the ground that the Staff List approved by the Examining Body was not submitted. Against the said rejection, an appeal under Section 18 of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993, was preferred. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside.

Procedural History

The petitioner applied for B.Ed. course; application rejected by NCTE; appeal under Section 18 of NCTE Act dismissed; then writ petition filed before Bombay High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993: Section 18
  • Societies Registration Act, 1860:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition of Linguistic Minority Institution Against NCTE Rejection of B.Ed. Course Application. Staff List Approval by Examining Body Not Mandatory for Minority Institutions Under Section 18 of NCTE Act, 1993.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Property Dispute Between Stepfather and Stepdaughter — Benami Transaction Claim Fails. The court held that the registered sale deed in the plaintiff's name establishes title, and the defendant's claim of...